“The fact that the accused married the prosecutrix and started to live happily together thereafter Calcutta HC keeping this in view reduces the rape sentence of the accused.”
Facts:
The appeal for the aforesaid case was made in the 1st Fast Track Court of Berhampur, Murshidabad. The accused and the prosecutrix were both the resident of Berhampur an Habai Sk (appellant) was the neighbour of the prosecutrix. The accused during the absence of her parents came to her house, committed rape and pressed cloth into her mouth when she tried to cry out loud. Thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her on many occasions assuring her to that he will marry her but later on he refused the same. Henceforth The FIR was filed putting charges as under sec 376 of IPC. Though later on the accused married the prosecutrix as per his words.
Issues:
The criminal act of the accused falls under Sec 376 of IPC which includes a rigorous punishment of 7years and fine up to Rs 15000/-. When the said act came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix father he went up to accused asking him to marry his daughter but the same was rejected by the accused. When the matter came up to the court the accused decided to marry the prosecutrix and thereafter live happily.
Judgement:
The judgement was passed by the first by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Berhampur, Murshidabad that the offence falls under Sec 376 of IPC with rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs 15000/-. Later on, as of 26th July 2018, the court observed that the accused married the prosecutrix and were living happily together so the punishment was reduced to six months. This judgement was made keeping in view the judgement passed on by the Supreme Court Ravindra v State of MP. The bench also relied on the judgement of Justice Katju’s in Baldev Singh v State of Punjab which was held “not a precedent” by a three-judge bench in Shimbhu and another v State of Haryana.
Learning Outcome:
In July 2015, the Supreme Court had pronounced a judgment in which it categorically observed that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of.
“Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error,” it was observed in State of MP vs. Madanlal.
